BBC to reduce DSat red button service to match Freeview
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk
now...
"During the course of this review, BBC management has stated its plans
to reduce the service’s use of capacity on the digital satellite and
cable platforms after the 2012 Olympics, to bring it closer to its
current usage on the digital terrestrial platform. This should result
in distribution cost savings to the BBC. We agree with this proposed
course of action, and we would expect BBC Red Button to reduce its
distribution costs by providing a more consistent level of service
across different digital TV platforms. Implementation date: 2012."
I wonder if there will be any distribution cost savings at all? Are
they really going to give up a transponder? Or maybe they'll let out
the space. Like they do all the other null packets they send. (!)
Here's an alternative idea for them: how about maximising the use and
value of these streams by finally letting Freesat viewers access them
all(!), giving them an EPG entry, and letting people PVR them! Oh, and
using the downtime for something useful.
Cheers,
David.
Zero Tolerance
"davidr...@postmaster.co.uk" <davidr...@postmaster.co.uk>
wrote:
>Here's an alternative idea for them: how about maximising the use and
>value of these streams by finally letting Freesat viewers access them
>all(!), giving them an EPG entry, and letting people PVR them! Oh, and
>using the downtime for something useful.
That won't sell any Freeview boxes, now will it?
Scaling back the service after 2012 is probably just something they
were planning to do anyway. "Interactive Television" was more of a fad
than a long-term venture.
--
J G Miller
> "Interactive Television" was more of a fad than a long-term venture.
It was something to generate more hype to get people interested in
getting equipped for DSO. Once DSO is achieved, ie after the Olympics 2012,
lo and behold, it is time for the BBC to scale it back and reduce it
to almost nothing.
There is also the possibility that once everybody is "Freeview" enabled,
more and more of what is now Freeview content will become Payview.
Jerry
<davidr...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:297bcd04-4f83-454d...@k3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
: Here's an alternative idea for them: how about maximising
: the use and value of these streams by finally letting Freesat
: viewers access them all(!), giving them an EPG entry, and
: letting people PVR them! Oh, and using the downtime for
: something useful.
They can't do that, simply, as each channel would then constitute
an extra channel which would then require formal approval.
--
Regards, Jerry.
David
<davidr...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:297bcd04-4f83-454d...@k3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
I'm getting Page Not Found.
Regards
David
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk
> <davidrobin...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
Yes, that is the politics behind it. I was talking about common
sense! ;-)
Cheers,
David
Zero Tolerance
wrote:
>It was something to generate more hype to get people interested in
>getting equipped for DSO.
It was something the BBC saw Sky doing and they couldn't wait to do it
themselves. I think even Sky have given up on it now.
>There is also the possibility that once everybody is "Freeview" enabled,
>more and more of what is now Freeview content will become Payview.
No realistic possibility that I can see, though.
--
J G Miller
>
> No realistic possibility that I can see, though.
So the fact that OfCon changed the licencing conditions of the "Freeview"
multiplexes B, C, and D to remove the "free to air" only restriction, ie
allow subscription content did not create a realistic possibility?
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
Strange. Perhaps the url is being truncated.
Try this:
http://tinyurl.com/35ll9rn
--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
Brian Gaff
another stream of data ie another channel, and its only used as and when.
Why not do as they always did and say, ch xx for whatever. Red button is
njust a bit of bullshit really. They want to use less paid for bandwidth,
end of story.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
<davidr...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:297bcd04-4f83-454d...@k3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
David
"Peter Duncanson" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:c02rd6ps73uf69niv...@4ax.com...
Got it
Thanks
David
Jerry
"J G Miller" <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
news:ibjv0q$29h$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
: On Friday, November 12th, 2010 at 17:45:41h +0000, Zero
: >
: > No realistic possibility that I can see, though.
:
: So the fact that OfCon changed the licencing conditions of the
"Freeview"
: multiplexes B, C, and D to remove the "free to air" only
restriction, ie
: allow subscription content did not create a realistic
possibility?
At the behest of ITV most likely...
That said, many think that if ITV (who are the only/most likely
broadcaster on FV) start hiding channels behind a paywall it will
be the start of the end of ITV, far to many already well
established pay TV channels to choose from already whilst other
FTA channels could easily fill the (non soap) vacuum that would
be left by ITV, I can't think of any other channel or broadcaster
who is not already behind a paywall on FV going that route -
those that might could/would already be behind one already -
thinking of Virgin and Discovery (aka Quest) or those hiding
behind the BT Vision paywall etc.
--
Regards, Jerry.
John Morley
interactive services on Freeview in order to make room for the HD channels
post-DSO. Two of the HD channels are the BBC's own but the other two are ITV
1 HD and Channel 4 HD, so how about ITV and Ch4 hand back the bandwidth
wasted by their +1 channels?
--
JM
Zero Tolerance
wrote:
>So the fact that OfCon changed the licencing conditions of the "Freeview"
>multiplexes B, C, and D to remove the "free to air" only restriction, ie
>allow subscription content did not create a realistic possibility?
>
> <http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.UK/consultations/paytv/>
Mux B is completely within the control of the BBC. The removal of the
FTA restriction there is merely a shim to allow Arqiva to short-sell
capacity which they do not yet own by using ex-BBC space in pre-DSO
areas.
Across the rest of the muxes, there's not enough room to do anything
of any particular value from a pay-tv perspective because there are
too many vested interests squatting on the capacity.
--
J G Miller
> Mux B is completely within the control of the BBC.
Post DSO, Multiplex B does not exist and is shared between BBC, Channel 3
licencees, and C4, and maybe five, for HD services.
So the fact that BBC lost considerable capacity on what was Multiplex B
shows that it is most definitely not within the control of the BBC.
> Across the rest of the muxes, there's not enough room to do anything of
> any particular value from a pay-tv perspective because there are too
> many vested interests squatting on the capacity.
Yes, at the present time with DVB-t/MPEG-2. But when Arquiva can persuade
the relevant parties that it is time to DVB-t2/MPEG-4 (which will be fully
endorsed by OfCon or its successor) then $ky Picnic, for example, could
very well be back on the table.
Jerry
"J G Miller" <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
news:ibm8u0$rkp$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
<snip>:
: Yes, at the present time with DVB-t/MPEG-2. But when Arquiva
can persuade
: the relevant parties that it is time to DVB-t2/MPEG-4 (which
will be fully
: endorsed by OfCon or its successor) then $ky Picnic, for
example, could
: very well be back on the table.
I can just smell the revolting public if the above does happen...
Perhaps the next BBC licence fee settlement will see the BBC
funding replacement STB, PVRs and TVs!
--
Regards, Jerry.
J G Miller
> I can just smell the revolting public if the above does happen...
Smell? ;)
Have you not already *seen* the revolting public in action at Millbank House
this week?
Zero Tolerance
wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 12:58:25 +0000, Zero Tolerance wrote:
>
>> Mux B is completely within the control of the BBC.
>
>Post DSO, Multiplex B does not exist and is shared between BBC, Channel 3
>licencees, and C4, and maybe five, for HD services.
>
>So the fact that BBC lost considerable capacity on what was Multiplex B
>shows that it is most definitely not within the control of the BBC.
Very nice. However as I thought was clear, I was referring to
Multiplex B as it exists now, and not in its nonexistent form
post-DSO.
>Yes, at the present time with DVB-t/MPEG-2. But when Arquiva can persuade
>the relevant parties that it is time to DVB-t2/MPEG-4 (which will be fully
>endorsed by OfCon or its successor) then $ky Picnic, for example, could
>very well be back on the table.
Still not likely, IMHO. Ofcom made sure that Picnic was kicked into
the long grass years ago. We won't be seeing that again. All the rest
of any new capacity would be sucked up by the usual suspects - ITV,
BBC, C4, Five, to maintain their status quo of terrestrial viewing
share.
--
J G Miller
> Still not likely, IMHO.
Maybe not likely, but it does have a greater possibility with
DVB-t2/MPEG-4 multiplexes.
> Ofcom made sure that Picnic was kicked into the long grass years ago.
For a good technical reason. OfCon promotes, as it should, DVB-t2
because it is a more efficient use of spectrum.
B$kyB was proposing DVB-t/MPEG-4 for Picnic.
Having mixed MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 on a DVB-t multiplex was a variable
that OfCon did not wish to countenance, especially as some integrated
televisions and digital converter boxes may have been unable to cope
with mixed encoding on a multiplex.
With the proposed abolition of OfCon, and a very B$kyB friendly Secretary
of State at DCMS who is under obligation to repay Uncle Rupert for his
support during the recent election and to maintain goodwill for the duration
of the current administration and into the next election, policies which
are not in the financial interest of B$kyB will not be pursued.
Light of Aria
"J G Miller" <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
That was not at all representative of the country and achieved nothing other
than harden The Coalitions resolve.
Light of Aria
"Jerry" <mapson...@btinternet.INVALID> wrote in message
news:ibmb1n$dn5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Of course The BBC could instill a regime of absolute enforcement and
S.O.R.N. for TV sets!
Jerry
"J G Miller" <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
news:ibpa1l$isf$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
<snip>
:
: With the proposed abolition of OfCon, and a very B$kyB friendly
Secretary
: of State at DCMS who is under obligation to repay Uncle Rupert
for his
: support during the recent election and to maintain goodwill for
the duration
: of the current administration and into the next election,
policies which
: are not in the financial interest of B$kyB will not be pursued.
Err, that would be why the DfT has ordered a review of Uncle
Rupert's wish to take outright control of BSkyB, if you were
correct I doubt that such a move by Uncle Vince would have been
approved higher up in the coalition.
--
Regards, Jerry.
J G Miller
>
> Err, that would be why the DfT has ordered a review of Uncle Rupert's
> wish to take outright control of BSkyB
Can we therefore conclude that the Daily Mirror is just plain lying then
when it reported at
"Business Secretary Vince Cable *enraged Tory allies* yesterday by
blocking Rupert Murdoch's £12billion bid to take over Sky ..."
or The Grauniad was lying when it reported at
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2010/nov/04/vince-cable-news-corp-bskyb>
"Cameron's Tories owed something to the pre-election backing of the
Sun and the other News Corp titles."
According to that same article, it was the opposition from two Tory party
supporting newspapers, the Daily Mail and the the Daily Telegraph which
provided the political support for Cable to refer the decision to the DfT.
Cameron, Osborne, and Hunt clearly would not want to alienate the owners
of two of their traditional supporting newspapers by refusing the referral,
which could have led to a collapse of the coalition.
As to what the DfT decides of course, is another matter entirely and one
would expect a ruling to be decided in the appropriate gentlemen's clubs
over after dinner alcoholic beverages.
Zero Tolerance
wrote:
>For a good technical reason. OfCon promotes, as it should, DVB-t2
>because it is a more efficient use of spectrum.
>
>B$kyB was proposing DVB-t/MPEG-4 for Picnic.
Nice try, but DVB-T2 hadn't even been prototyped at the time that
Picnic was proposed. Thus, with DVB-T being the only game in town, and
MPEG-4 being substantially more efficient way to use the spectrum than
MPEG-2, Ofcom of course promoted, as it should, a LESS efficient use
of spectrum.
>Having mixed MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 on a DVB-t multiplex was a variable
>that OfCon did not wish to countenance, especially as some integrated
>televisions and digital converter boxes may have been unable to cope
>with mixed encoding on a multiplex.
However, broadcasting material which 'some' Freeview equipment is
unable to cope with doesn't seem to be a problem when those broadcasts
are undertaken by anyone except Sky.
Any Freeview equipment which genuinely are "unable to cope" with a
transmission in a format they did not understand would already be
completely unusable in many parts of the UK.
>With the proposed abolition of OfCon, and a very B$kyB friendly Secretary
>of State at DCMS who is under obligation to repay Uncle Rupert for his
>support during the recent election and to maintain goodwill for the duration
>of the current administration and into the next election, policies which
>are not in the financial interest of B$kyB will not be pursued.
Cobblers. I don't recall seeing anyone wave through the News Corp
takeover...
--
killjoy
I bought a Freesat box to get the additional "Press Red" channels that
Freeview doesn't have. Does this mean I wasted my money?
kj
J G Miller
> I bought a Freesat box to get the additional "Press Red" channels that
> Freeview doesn't have. Does this mean I wasted my money?
No, because you will still be able to watch CBS Action, CBS Drama, CBS Reality,
Men&Movies, Movies4Men, Movies4Men2, Horror Channel, NHK World, CNBC etc, etc
Jerry
"J G Miller" <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
: On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 22:19:39 +0000, Jerry Mapson asked:
: >
: > Err, that would be why the DfT has ordered a review of Uncle
Rupert's
: > wish to take outright control of BSkyB
:
: Can we therefore conclude that the Daily Mirror is just plain
lying then
: when it reported at
:
:
<http://www.mirror.co.UK/news/top-stories/2010/11/05/business-secretary-vince-cable-blocks-rupert-murdoch-s-bid-to-buy-sky-115875-22693408/>
:
: "Business Secretary Vince Cable *enraged Tory allies*
yesterday by
:
: or The Grauniad was lying when it reported at
:
:
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2010/nov/04/vince-cable-news-corp-bskyb>
:
: "Cameron's Tories owed something to the pre-election
backing of the
: Sun and the other News Corp titles."
Sorry to say, I wouldn't believe a word those news papers print,
one wants the collapse of the coalition whilst the other still
has to make the case against both the Tories and Murdoch,
anything than sows division...
:
: According to that same article, it was the opposition from two
Tory party
: supporting newspapers, the Daily Mail and the the Daily
Telegraph which
: provided the political support for Cable to refer the decision
to the DfT.
:
: Cameron, Osborne, and Hunt clearly would not want to alienate
the owners
: of two of their traditional supporting newspapers by refusing
the referral,
: which could have led to a collapse of the coalition.
The fact that, if true, it's more important what the *none*
Murdoch press say would suggest that perhaps Murdoch's influence
on UK politics might be on the wane.
:
: As to what the DfT decides of course, is another matter
entirely and one
: would expect a ruling to be decided in the appropriate
gentlemen's clubs
: over after dinner alcoholic beverages.
Hmm, if only, then we might get a decision based on what is best
for the UK rather than what is best for a political party!
--
Regards, Jerry.
J G Miller
> Sorry to say, I wouldn't believe a word those news papers print
Fair enough, you do consider them to be lying then.
Jerry
"J G Miller" <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
No, that would be to east to contest, economical with the truth,
no lies but facts twisted for the reasons you snipped (for
brevity).
--
Regards, Jerry.
Jim
> They really are taking the **** with their "Platform Neutral" stance
> now...
>
> "During the course of this review, BBC management has stated its plans
> to reduce the service’s use of capacity on the digital satellite and
> cable platforms after the 2012 Olympics, to bring it closer to its
> current usage on the digital terrestrial platform. This should result
> in distribution cost savings to the BBC. We agree with this proposed
> course of action, and we would expect BBC Red Button to reduce its
> distribution costs by providing a more consistent level of service
> across different digital TV platforms. Implementation date: 2012."
>
> from
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/service_licences/service_reviews/red_button/red_button_final.pdf
>
> I wonder if there will be any distribution cost savings at all? Are
> they really going to give up a transponder? Or maybe they'll let out
> the space. Like they do all the other null packets they send. (!)
>
The transponder for those channels is leased by Sky.
I presume the BBC is paying BSkyB. Maybe this
statement is just a negotiating position.
Glyn Morgan
"Jim" <j...@any.net> wrote in message
news:e9udnTWSpe4e6n_R...@brightview.co.uk...
> The transponder for those channels is leased by Sky. I presume the BBC is
> paying BSkyB. Maybe this statement is just a negotiating position.
I don't think so. Certainly when I was involved in this the BBC were leasing
their transponder space directly from SES and Eurosat.
I think the BBC still have to pay Sky to have the services included on that
Platform but I assume that renting the transponder space is by far the
biggest cost.
Also as I think transponder space is at a premium I don't think that
suggesting to give one up would be a wise negotiation strategy.
Glyn
J G Miller
> Certainly when I was involved in this the BBC were leasing their transponder
> space directly from SES and Eurosat.
Yes since all B$kyB offer other stations is a place on their EPG and the option
of being encypted, and both come at a price, with encryption as you might expect,
being a very large sum of money.